International Journal of Systems Science

Vol. 38, No. 11, November 2007, 901–912

Optimal braking and estimation of tyre friction

in automotive vehicles using sliding modes
NITIN PATEL*, CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS and SARAH K. SPURGEON

Control & Instrumentation Research Group, Department of Engineering,

University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

(Received 15 February 2006; in final form 12 January 2007)

This article proposes a sliding-mode-based scheme for optimal deceleration in an automotive

braking maneuvre. The scheme is model-based and seeks to maintain the longitudinal
slip value associated with the tyre road contact patch at an optimum value – the point
at which the friction coefficient-slip curve reaches a maximum. The scheme assumes only
wheel angular velocity is measured, and uses a sliding mode observer to reconstruct the
states and a parameter relating to road conditions for use in the controller. The sliding
mode controller then seeks to maintain the vehicle at this optimal slip value through an
appropriate choice of sliding surface.

Keywords: Sliding modes; Observers; Nonlinear systems; Friction estimation

1. Introduction term variations. Various methods have been developed

to predict tyre/road friction (Kiencke 1993, Gustafsson
Increasingly, commercial vehicles are being fitted with 1997, Ray 1997, Canudas-de-Wit et al. 2003, Yi et al.
micro-processor-based systems to enhance the safety, 2003, Alvarez et al. 2005). Most are passive, in the
improve driving comfort, increase traffic circulation, sense that they make use of available data from existing
and reduce environmental pollution associated with sensors to compute an estimate of the tyre/road friction
vehicles. Examples of such products are anti-lock and assume the parameters related to the vehicle and the
brake systems (ABS), traction control systems (TCS), tyres are constant. The methods from Kiencke (1993),
adaptive cruise control (ACC), active yaw control, Gustafsson (1997), Ray (1997), Canudas-de-Wit et al.
active suspension systems, and engine management (2003), Yi et al. (2003), Alvarez et al. (2005) use
systems (EMS). Many of these systems rely on the observers designed around mathematical models of
physical parameters of the vehicle and the conditions friction and simple vehicle models. Ray (1997) primarily
in which it is required to operate. Some of these vehicle uses a Kalman filter but Kiencke (1993) also examines
related parameters are fixed (or are at least subject to a least squares approach. Extensive work by Canudas-
negligible variation); some depend on specific scenarios de-Wit et al. (2003) and Yi et al. (2003) has used a
relating to the way in which the vehicle is being LuGre friction model (Canudas-de-Wit et al. 1995)
used (e.g. loading) and may be thought of as and investigates nonlinear adaptive observers based on
constant unknown parameters (which may be estimated measurements of wheel speed.
or accounted for in terms of the robustness of the In terms of vehicle safety, precise and reliable braking
control system); but others – particularly the tyre/road is very important. A good estimate of the road/tyre
friction coefficient – are subjected to severe and short friction coefficient is an important basis for many of
the control systems developed to improve safety in an
emergency braking situation. Various methods have
*Corresponding author. Email: np74@leicester.ac.uk been developed to optimize the brake input such that
International Journal of Systems Science
ISSN 0020–7721 print/ISSN 1464–5319 online
2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00207720701409637
902
maximum friction is maintained between the tyre and
road which ensures the shortest possible stopping
distance. Drakunov et al. (1995) for example have
proposed a method based on a sliding mode controller.
This approach does not require a friction coefficient
estimate directly, but uses an extremum seeking
approach instead. The method proposed by Canudas-
de-Wit et al. (2003) is based on estimation of the friction
coefficient (and also certain system states). This method
uses a dynamic friction model – the so called LuGre
friction model – and assumes that information about
angular velocity is known but the tyre/road conditions
are not. Yi et al. (2002) proposed an adaptive
method which estimates the parameters associated with
a modification of the pseudo-static ‘magic formula’
of Pacejka (Bakker et al. 1987) for tyre road friction.
The algorithm is such that by choosing suitable
initial conditions and parameter adaptation gains,
it underestimates the maximum coefficient of friction
and slip in the situation when there is a lack of persis-
tency of excitation. A second method proposed by Yi
et al. (2003) uses the LuGre friction model from
Canudas-de-Wit et al. (1995) and proposed an adaptive
observer based on passivity methods. The approach also
assumes that only information about angular velocity is
known. Olmos and Álvarez Icaza (2005) have proposed
a method which uses a Lyapunov function under the
assumption that the force at the tyre/road interface
can be obtained by using a dynamic friction model.
Recently, Alvarez et al. (2005) have proposed a friction
estimation method which uses measurements of wheel
angular velocity and vehicle longitudinal acceleration.
From the measurement of wheel angular velocity,
they propose to numerically compute wheel angular
acceleration. These three signals are then used in the
estimation of the friction coefficients and in the
brake input control law. The authors assume that
the parameters of the friction model, the internal friction
state and vehicle velocity are unknown. In all the
schemes in Kiencke (1993), Gustafsson (1997), Ray
(1997), Canudas-de-Wit et al. (2003), Yi et al. (2003),
Alvarez et al. (2005) it is assumed that the parameters
of the vehicle including the mass, effective wheel radius
and moments of inertia are fixed and known.
The work described in this article uses the same
friction model as in Canudas-de-Wit et al. (2003),
Yi et al. (2003), Alvarez et al. (2005) but employs
a fixed gain sliding mode observer (Utkin 1992,
Edwards and Spurgeon 1994, Drakunov and Utkin
1995) to estimate the road/tyre friction coefficient.
{Specifically, equation (8.40) from Canudas-de-Wit et al. (2003) has been used together with the parameter values in table 1 from the appendix.
In Canudas-de-Wit et al. (2003), slip during a braking maneuvre is defined as s ¼ ðr!
vÞ=v, i.e., with opposite polarity to the definition used here
– accordingly s has been replaced by
s to obtain the plots in Figures 1–3.
N. Patel et al.
Here both the optimal braking controller and the obser-
ver are developed from a purely sliding mode perspec-
tive. A formal stability proof for the controller is given
when state information is available, and shows
that the reduced order sliding motion associated with
optimal breaking is stable. Explicit analytical gains for
the sliding mode observer are given – parameterized by
a single scalar which reflects the rate at which sliding
is obtained in the observer. Two scalar parameters are
used to tune the performance of the controller, and the
effect of both is well understood. During sliding,
the equivalent output estimation error is used to
estimate the road surface parameter rather than the
adaptive scheme in Yi et al. (2003).
This article is structured as follows: section 2 describes
the tyre and vehicle model that will be used;
section 3 considers the development of a sliding mode
controller for optimal braking under the assumption
that all system states and the road tyre interface is
known. Section 4 goes on to develop a sliding mode
observer which is used for estimating the road/tyre
friction coefficient and the states of the system that are
needed in the control law. Finally, section 5 makes
some concluding remarks.
2. Tyre/road friction and vehicle modeling
The tyre/road coefficient of friction is defined as
Fx Friction force

¼ ¼ ð1Þ
Fn Normal force
The quantity
is a nonlinear function of many physical
variables including the velocity of the vehicle, the road
surface conditions and so-called slip. Longitudinal
slip, s, can be defined for a braking scenario as
v
r!
s¼ where v > r! and v 6¼ 0 ð2Þ
v
where r is the effective rolling radius of the tyre, v is the
linear speed of the tyre center and ! is the angular speed
of the tyre. Slip is an indirect measure of the fraction of
the contact patch on the road surface and it creates
braking and accelerating forces.
The plot in figure 1 is a typical
-slip curve associated
with a dry asphalt road surface. The figure has been
obtained from using an expression known as the
pseudo-steady state LuGre friction modely
(Canudas-de-Wit et al. 2003). When s ¼ 0, free rolling
 Optimal braking and estimation of tyre friction 903

of the wheel takes place, whilst s ¼ 1 represents a locked where vr ¼ v
r! is the relative velocity and z is an
wheel condition. The parameters used to produce the internal frictional state. The friction force Fx produced
figure above are given in table A1. It can be seen from by the tyre–road contact is given by
figure 1 that there is a unique value, s^, associated
with the maximum value of
. During a braking
Fx ¼ Fn ð0 z þ 1 z_
2 vr Þ ð6Þ
maneuvre, maintaining the slip at s ¼ s^ provides an
optimal stopping distance.
Less favorable (and potentially more dangerous) road where  0 is the stiffness coefficient,  1 is the damping
surface conditions tend to decrease the peak value of the coefficient, and  2 is the viscous relative damping

-slip curve (by up to 75% in icy conditions) and alter coefficient. The scalar function
the value of s^. In many friction models this effect is
taken into account by means of a ‘road surface condi- 
tion’ parameter. Figure 2 captures this effect by means hðvr Þ :¼
c þ ð
s

c Þe
jðvr =vs Þj ð7Þ
of a parameter  which forms part of the pseudo-
steady state LuGre friction model (Yi et al. 2000). Relationship between m and s when q varies from 1 to 4
Figure 2 shows curves representing the relationship q=1
between
and s for different values of . This has 1
been obtained keeping the vehicle velocity v at
13.41 m/s (30 mph) and using different values for .
0.8
Figure 3 captures the change in value of s^ as the
q = 1.5
linear velocity v and  change (Harned et al. 1969).
The relationship in figure 3 has been saved as a 2D 0.6
q=2
m
look-up table which will then be used in the controller
that will be developed in section 3. q = 2.5
For the purpose of developing a friction estimator, 0.4

consider the dynamic LuGre friction model from

Canudas-de-Wit et al. (2003) together with the vehicle q=4
0.2
dynamics:

0 jvr j 0
z_ ¼
vr
 z ð3Þ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
hðvr Þ Longitudinal slip s
J!_ ¼
rFx
! !
kb Pb ð4Þ Figure 2. Pseudo static model at v ¼ 13:41 m/s and
mv_ ¼ 4Fx
Fav ð5Þ  between 1 and 4.

Relationship between velocity v, q and optimal slip

Relationship between m and s
q =1
1
0.4
0.35
0.8
0.3
Optimal slip

0.25
0.6
m

0.2
0.15
0.4
0.1
1
0.05
0.2 0 2
10
20 3 q
30
Velocity 40
v m/s 50 4
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Longitudinal slip s
Figure 3. Optimum slip s^ for velocities between 5 and 45 m/s
Figure 1. Pseudo static model at v ¼ 13.41 m/s and  ¼ 1. and  between 1 and 4.
904
where vs is the Stribeck relative velocity,
s is the
normalized static friction coefficient,
c is the normal-
ized Coulomb friction. The parameter  in (3) captures
the changes in the road characteristics: typically,  ¼1
represents dry,  ¼ 2.5 represents wet and  ¼ 4
represents icy road conditions. In (4) and (5), which
represent a simple model of the vehicle, J is the
moment of inertia of the wheel, ! represents the
viscous rotational friction coefficient, m is the total
mass of the vehicle, Fav represents the aerodynamic
force, kb the brake system gain and Pb is the
actual applied braking pressure (the control variable).
The values of these quantities used in this article
are given in table A2.
As in Yi et al. (2000), define new state
variables x1 :¼ z, x2 :¼ v, x3 :¼ r!
v. Then
0 jx3 j
x_ 1 ¼ z_ ¼ x3
 x1 ¼ x3
fðx3 Þx1
hðx3 Þ
where fðx3 Þ :¼ 0 jx3 j=hðx3 Þ and h(x3) is defined in
equation ð5Þ. From the definition of x2 and its derivative
in equation (3),
ð4Fn ð0 x1 þ 1 x_1 þ 2 x3 Þ
Fav Þ
x_ 2 ¼
m achieve optimal deceleration. The values of s^, where
after substituting for the value of the tyre/road friction
force Fx from equation (6). Assume that the vehicle is
traveling on a flat road and the load associated with
the mass of the vehicle is equally distributed about
each wheel. Substituting the value of x_ 1 from equa-
tion (6) and using the fact that Fn ¼ mg=4 where g is
the gravity constant and Fav ¼ v mgx2 Yi et al. (2003)
where  v is the rolling resistance coefficienty, yields
x_ 2 ¼ gð0 x1 þ 1 ðx3
fðx3 Þx1 Þ þ 2 x3
v x2 Þ
_ Substituting the values of !_
By definition x_ 3 ¼ r!_
v.
and v_ from equations (4) and (5) respectively
r expression into equation (8) gives
x_ 3 ¼ ð
rFx
! !
kb Pb Þ
gð0 x1 þ 1 ðx3
fðx3 Þx1 Þ
J
þ 2 x3 Þ
v gx2 ð11Þ
{In (Yi et al. 2000, 2002, Alarez et al. 2005, Olmos and Álarez Icaza 2005) the aerodynamic force is modelled as a function of the square of the
vehicle velocity. However in Wong (2001), and Yi et al. (2001, 2003) it is modeled as Fav ¼ v mgv which is more conducive in terms of the analysis
employed in this article. (In some strands of the literature no aerodynamic terms are considered at all—for example Canudas-de-Wit et al. 1995,
2003, Canudas-de-Wit and Triotras 1999, and Müller et al. 2003)
N. Patel et al.
Substituting the value of Fx from (6) and x_ 1 from (8)
into the above, and using the fact that ! ¼ ðx2 þ x3 Þ=r,
gives
x_ 3 ¼ qð0 x1 þ 1 ðx3
fðx3 Þx1 Þ þ 2 x3 Þ
! r

ðx2 þ x3 Þ
kb Pb þ v gx2 ð12Þ
J J
where the aggregate parameter q :¼
ðg þ ðFn r2 =JÞÞ.
The state-space equations (8), (10) and (12) will be
used as the basis for the controller and observer designs
which follow.
3. Controller design
The objective of a braking maneuvre is typically to bring
ð8Þ the vehicle to a stop as quickly and as safely as possible.
For the system given in ð6Þ, ð8Þ, and ð10Þ the brake
input Pb can be manipulated. This allows a brake pres-
sure controller to be designed that achieves a vehicle
longitudinal slip close to its optimal value, keeping the
vehicle stable by maintaining maximum friction at all
times. Initially a sliding mode control law will be
developed, based on the assumption that the states
ð9Þ (and the road condition parameter ) are known, to
the
–slip curve reaches its maximum, will be used
from figure 3 for a given value of v and .
Define a switching function for the proposed sliding
mode controller (Uktin 1992) as
 :¼ x3 þ x2 s^ ð13Þ
During an ideal sliding motion,   0 and therefore
x3 ¼
x2 s^. This means, for x2 > 0 i.e. nonzero vehicle
speeds,
x3 =x2 ¼ s^ whilst sliding is taking place.
ð10Þ From the definitions of the states x2 and x3, it
follows
x3 =x2 is the definition of slip from (2), and
so maintaining a sliding motion on the surface in (11)
is equivalent to maintaining the vehicle at the optimum
point on the
–slip curve.
Whilst sliding, x3 ¼
x2 s^, and substituting this
x_ 1 ¼
^sx2
x1 fð
x2 s^Þ ð14Þ
 Optimal braking and estimation of tyre friction 905

and substituting in (10) yields This system matrix (18) can be further decomposed as
Að^sÞ ¼ A0 þ ð^s
s^0 ÞA1 where
x_ 2 ¼ g0 x1
gð1 s^ þ 2 s^ þ v Þx2
g1 x1 fð
x2 s^Þ ð15Þ  

g1 s^0
^s0
A0 ¼ ð19Þ
g0
g2 1 ð2 s^0 þ v Þ
ð2 s^0 þ v Þg
Equations (14) and (15) can be rewritten as  

g1
1
A1 ¼ ð20Þ
" # " #" #
g2 1 2
2 g
x_ 1 0
^s x1
¼
x_ 2 g0
gð1 s^ þ 2 s^ þ v Þ x2 A Lyapunov matrix of the form Vs ðxr Þ ¼ xTr Q
1 ð^sÞxr
" # will be sought where
1

x1 fð
x2 s^Þ ð16Þ Qð^sÞ :¼ Q0 þ ð^s
s^0 ÞQ1 > 0 ð21Þ
g1
and Q0 , Q1 2 R22 are diagonal matrices with structure
The nonlinear equations in (16) govern the sliding Q0 ¼ diagðq1 , q2 Þ and Q1 ¼ diagðq3 , q4 Þ where qi 2 R
motion and need to be shown to be stable. This is for i ¼ 1,. . . ,4. Note that (21) is identical to the form
demonstrated in the following result: in (17). Suppose Q0 and Q1 can be found so that
Proposition 1: The system in (16) is asymptotically
dQ _
stable for the parameters in tables A1 and A2 for Að^sÞQð^sÞ þ Qð^sÞAT ð^sÞ
s^ < 0 ð22Þ
0:1  s^  0:6 and js_^j  0:1. dt

Proof: Consider a candidate Lyapunov function of then taking derivatives of the Lyapunov function
the form candidate Vr along the trajectories yields
 
dQ _
x21 ðx2
1 gx1 Þ2 _ T T
Vr ðxr Þ ¼ xr Að^sÞQð^sÞ þ Qð^sÞA ð^sÞ
s^ xr
Vr ðx1 , x2 Þ ¼ þ ð17Þ dt
ðq1 þ q2 s^Þ ðq3 þ q4 s^Þ

2x21 q11 ð^sÞ f ð
x2 s^Þ

where the qi for i ¼ 1,. . . ,4 are scalar constants. The

where q11 ð^sÞ represents the top left element of Q
1 ð^sÞ.
motivation for this choice of Lyapunov function comes
Since Q
1 ð^sÞ is s.p.d. then q11 ð^sÞ > 0. Also
from the work in Edwards et al. (2006) which looks
fð
x2 s^Þ :¼ 0 jx2 s^j=hð
x2 s^Þ with 0 
c  hðÞ 
s and
at solvability conditions for the so-called constrained
so fðÞ  0. Consequently
Lyapunov problem coupled with techniques from the
study of affine dependent Lyapunov functions
(Gahinet et al. 1996). Note the function in (17) is para- 2x21 q11 ð^sÞ f ð
x2 s^Þ  0
meterized by s^. It is convenient to first change coordi-
nates to facilitate the synthesis of the gains q1,. . ., q4. and it follows from equation (22) that V_ r ðxr Þ < 0.
Consider the mapping ðx1 , x2 Þ ° ðx1 , x~ 2 Þ where The problem of finding Q0 and Q1 so that (22) holds
x~ 2 :¼ x2
g1 x1 . It can be verified that in the new coor- can be cast as an LMI optimization problem.
dinates equation (16) becomes Specifically, a sufficient condition (Gahinet et al. 1996,
1995), for (22) is that
" # " #" #
x_ 1
g1 s^
^s x1 QðsÞ > In V2S ð23Þ
¼
x_~ 2 2
g0
g 1 ð2 s^ þ v Þ
ð2 s^ þ v Þg x~ 2 T
QðsÞAðsÞ þ AðsÞQðsÞ
Q1 ðrÞ þ s M1 < 0, 2
ffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflffl{zfflffl}
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
Að^sÞ xr ðs, rÞ 2 S  R ð24Þ
" #
1 Q1 AT1 þ A1 Q1 þ M1 > 0 ð25Þ

x1 fð
x2 s^Þ ð18Þ M1 > 0 ð26Þ
0
where M1 2 R22 and is s.p.d and S ¼ f^s0 , s^1 g and
The system matrix Að^sÞ depends on the time-varying R ¼ f
^r, r^g. Using the LMItool (Gahinet et al. 1995)
parameter s^ which is assumed to satisfy s^0  s^ðtÞ  s^1 it can be verified that for S ¼ f0:05, 0:4g and
and js_^j  r^ where s^0 , s^1 and r^ are known scalars. R ¼ f
0:03, 0:03g, and using the vehicle and
906 N. Patel et al.

friction parameters in tables A1 and A2, the inequalities Figures 4 and 5 show the plant states, , the switching
(23)–(26) are feasible for function  and the control signal Pb respectively from
a closed loop simulation using the controller in (30).
   
0:0081 0 0:1613 0 The plant (and friction) parameters that have been
Q0 ¼ Q1 ¼ : used in the simulations which follow are given in
0 292:2088 0
0:0246
tables A1 and A2 which have been taken from Yi et
This guarantees asymptotic stability for 0:05  s^  0:4 al. (2000). During the simulation the value for  varies
and js_^j  0:03. œ between 1 and 4. The initial conditions for z, v and vr
are 0, 30 and 0 respectively. Here m1 and m2 from (30)
Now a controller will be developed to guarantee that have been chosen to be m1 ¼ 5 and m2 ¼ 5. The
sliding takes place. This is more straightforward under discontinuous relay component has been replaced by
the assumptions that the states are available. the sigmoidal approximation ð=jj þ Þ where  is a
Differentiating equation ð13Þ gives small positive constant (taken here as  ¼ 0:001). In
figure 5 the switching function can be seen to reach
_ ¼ x_ 3 þ x_ 2 s^ þ s_^x2 ð27Þ zero in 0.2 seconds and it remains at zero thereafter
indicating that sliding is taking place. It can be
Substituting the values for x_ 2 and x_ 3 from equation ð10Þ seen that the vehicle speed drops from 30 m/s to
and ð12Þ respectively into the above equation gives approximately 2 m/s over a period of 5 seconds.

!
_ ¼ qð0 x1 þ 1 ðx3
fðx3 Þx1 Þ þ 2 x3 Þ
ðx2 þ x3 Þ 4. Observer design
J
r

Kb Pb þ v gx2 þ s^gð0 x1 þ 1 ðx3
fðx3 Þx1 Þ
J In this section, a sliding mode observer will be designed
þ 2 x3
v x2 Þ þ s_^x2 ð28Þ based on the assumption that only the angular velocity !
is available (which can be measured easily). For the pur-
poses of observer design it is convenient to split the state
Define
space equations (8), (10), and (12) into linear and non-
linear components. It can be easily checked that (8),
1 ðxÞ :¼
ðq1 x1 f1 ðxÞ þ g1 x1 f1 ðxÞ^sÞ (10), and (12) can be written as
2 ðxÞ :¼
ð f1 ðxÞ þ x2 s_^ þ s^f2 ðxÞÞ
_ ¼ AxðtÞ þ BuðtÞ þ Dx1 ðtÞ f ðx3 Þ
xðtÞ ð32Þ
where the scalar function f1 ðxÞ :¼ q0 x1 þ x3 qð1 þ 2 Þ þ
v gx2
! ðx2 þ x3 Þ=J and the function f2 ðxÞ :¼ gð0 x1 þ where the control signal uðtÞ ¼ Pb ðtÞ and
x3 ð1 þ 2 ÞÞ
v gx2 and s^ is the optimal value of the 2 3
longitudinal slip s under current conditions, based 0 0 1
on the parameter  which is assumed to be known. 6 g
gv gð1 þ 2 Þ 7
A¼6
4
0 7
From the above, equation ð22Þ can be written as w ! 5
q0 gv
qð1 þ 2 Þ

2 3 J J
r 0 2 3
_ ¼
kb Pb þ 1 ðxÞ þ 2 ðxÞ ð29Þ
1
J 6 0 7 6 7
6
B¼4 7 D ¼ 4
g1 5 ð33Þ
rkb 5
If the control input Pb (brake pressure) is defined as

q1
J
J Since, it is assumed in this section that only angular
Pb ¼ ð1 ðxÞ þ 2 ðxÞ þ m1  þ m2 sgnðÞÞ ð30Þ
rkb wheel speed ! is measured, the output distribution
matrix
where m1 and m2 are controller gains to be designed and
 
sgn represents the signum function, then substituting 1 1
for Pb from equation (30) into equation (29) gives the C¼ 0 ð34Þ
r r
reachability condition
The following model-based nonlinear observer is
_ ¼
m1 
m2 sgnðÞ ð31Þ proposed
c
_^ ¼ AxðtÞ
xðtÞ ^ þ BuðtÞ þ Gl ey þ D ð35Þ
This implies that  ! 0 in finite time ts  jð0Þj=m2 .
 Optimal braking and estimation of tyre friction 907
Internal friction state z
x 10−3 Velocity v (m/s) Angular velocity w (m/s)
0 30 100

25 80
−2
20
60
−4 15
40
10
−6
5 20

−8 0 0
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
Time (seconds) Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Relative velocity Vr (m/s) q Sliding surface f

7 4 5
6 3.5 4
5 3
3
4 2.5
2
3 2
1
2 1.5
1 1 0
0 0.5 −1
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
Time (seconds) Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure 4. Evaluation of plant states, road condition parameter , and the sliding surface .

Brake input Pb (Pa)

2500 Suppose e ¼ colðe1 , e2 , e3 Þ, then in the coordinates e1, e2
and ey it can be shown that ðA, D, CÞ ° ðA,
D,
where

CÞ
2000
1500 " #
A
11 A
12
1000 A
¼
A
21 A
22
500 2 3
0 6 0
1 r 7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 6 7
Time (seconds) 6 7
¼6 g0
gðv þ 1 þ 2 Þ gð1 þ 2 Þr 7
6 7
4 Fn r Fn r Fn r 2
! 5
Figure 5. Brake pressure Pb.
0 ð1 þ 2 Þ
ð1 þ 2 Þ

J J J J
ð37Þ

where Gl ¼ colðg1 , g2 , g3 Þ and g1, g2 and g3 are scalar and

gains; and  ¼ ksgnðey Þ and k is a scalar gain. 2 3
The main objective is to synthesize an observer to
1
" #
generate an estimated angular velocity !^ ¼ Cx^ such D
1 6 7
6 7
that ey ¼ !
!^  0 in finite time despite the nonlinear D
¼ ¼ 6
g1 7 ð38Þ
D
2 4F r 5
n
friction terms in (8), (10) and (12) which have been 1
ignored. J
Define e ¼ x
x^ as the state estimation error.
The output distribution matrix is
The dynamics for the error system can be obtained
from (32) and (35) as 
C
¼ 0 0 1 ð39Þ
 
e_ ¼ ðA
Gl CÞe þ D fðx3 Þx1
k sgnðey Þ ð36Þ Using dual arguments to those in Edwards and
Spurgeon (1997), a useful choice for the linear gain of
908 N. Patel et al.

the observer is (Edwards and Spurgeon 1994). It can be verified by

direct substitution that PD ¼ FCT for some positive
" #
A
11 L
þ A
12
L

scalar F. Then
G
l ¼ ð40Þ  
A
22 þ A
21 L

 V_ ¼
eT Qe
2eT PD k sgnðey Þ
fðx3 Þx1

eT Qe
2Fjey jðk
jfðx3 Þx1 jÞ
where L
¼ D

1

2 D1 and  is a negative scalar. After some 0
algebra it can be shown that
2 3 for large enough k and so the state estimation error e is
g
1 quadratically stable as claimed. œ
6 7
G
l ¼ 6 7
4 g
2 5 As argued in Edwards and Spurgeon (1994), in a
domain of the origin, a sliding motion takes place on
g
3
  S ¼ fe : Ce ¼ 0g. Now, from first principles, the reduced
2 3
 J order motion whilst sliding will be investigated. Since
rþ gþ
6 1 Fn r 7
6 7
6   7 re_y ¼ ðg þ qÞð0 e1 þ 1 ðe3
fðx3 Þx1 Þ þ 2 e3 þ 1 Þ
6  J 7
! 
¼ 6 g  þ gðv þ 1 þ 2 Þ
0
6 þ grð1 þ  2 7
Þ 7
6 1 Fn r 7
k2 þ k3 þ ey
4 5 J
w 0
ð1 þ 2 Þq
þ

J 1 if a sliding mode is enforced in finite time, ey ¼ e_y ¼ 0
ð41Þ (Uktin 1992) and the above equation becomes

In the original coordinates e1, e2 and e3 the linear output 0 ¼ ðg þ qÞð0 e1 þ 1 ðe3
fðx3 Þx1 Þ þ 2 e3 þ 1 eq Þ ð45Þ
error injection gain g1 ¼ g
1 , g2 ¼ g
2 and g3 ¼ rg
3
g
2 .
where eq represents the equivalent output error
Proposition 2: The state estimation error system in
injection signal necessary to maintain a sliding motion
equation (36) is quadratically stable.
in the state estimation error space. Therefore from (45)
Proof: Consider as a potential Lyapunov candidate an expression for eq is given by
VðeÞ ¼ eT Pe where
1
2 3 2 3 eq ¼
ð0 e1 þ 1 ðe3
fðx3 Þx1 Þ þ 2 e3 Þ ð46Þ
1 0 0 1 0 0 1
6 7" #
60 1 17 P
1
P
1 L
6
60 1 07
7
P¼6
6 r77 6 7 ð42Þ During the sliding motion ey :¼ ðe3 þ e2 Þ=r ¼ 0 which
T

4
4
1

T



5
L P1 P2 þ L P1 L 1 15 implies e3 ¼
e2 . Substituting this value of eq into the
0 0 0
r r first two equations of the components of (36), and
r
using the fact that the e3 ¼
e2 , it can be shown that
where P
1 2 R22 is an s.p.d. matrix which is a Lyapunov the sliding motion is governed by the reduced order
matrix for linear system

2 3 2 3
0 2   0 2  

e_1
e1
A
11
L
A
21 ¼ 4 1 1 5 ð43Þ ¼ 4 1 1 5 ð47Þ
e_2 0
v g e2
0
v g

and P
2 is a sufficiently large positive scalar such that and so the sliding motion is stable and e1 ! 0 and
e2 ! 0. When e1 , e2 ¼ 0 then the expression for the
PðA
Gl CÞ þ ðA
Gl CÞT P ¼:
Q < 0 ð44Þ equivalent output error injection signal (46) becomes

This can be verified using ideas similar to those in eq ¼ fðx3 Þx1 ð48Þ
Edwards and Spurgeon (1994). It is clear from (43)
that A
11
L
A
21 is stable with eigenvalues at Equation (48) indicates that the expression
f
ð0 =1 Þ,
v gg and so the existence of P1
eq
is guaranteed. Also the existence of a sufficiently ^ ¼ ð49Þ
large P2 to ensure (39) is also guaranteed fðx^ 3 Þx^ 1
 Optimal braking and estimation of tyre friction 909
Internal friction state z
x 10−3 Velocity v (m/s) Angular velocity w (m/s)
2 35 100
30
0 80
25
−2 20 60

−4 15 40
10
−6 20
5
−8 0 0
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
Time (seconds) Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Relative velocity vr (m/s) q Estimated sliding surface f

8 4 5
3.5 4
6
3
3
4 2.5
2
2 2
1.5 1
0 1 0
−2 0.5 −1
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
Time (seconds) Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure 6. ^
Evaluation of plant and estimated states, road condition parameter , and the sliding surface .

may be used as an estimate for the parameter  during
the sliding motion. Since x^ 1 ! x1 and x^ 3 ! x3 it follows
fðx^ 3 Þx^ 1 ! fðx3 Þx1 and so ^ ! . Notice (48) is only
valid when x^ 1 6¼ 0 and x^ 3 6¼ 0 since fðx^ 3 Þ > 0 if x3 6¼ 0
by definition.
In the simulations which follow the initial conditions
for the plant represented by z, v and vr are 0, 30, and
0 whilst 0, 30.1 and 0.1 are used for the observer. This
represents a deliberate mis-match for the purpose of
demonstration. Now the estimated states are used in
the control law in (30) together with the estimate of 
from (49). The discontinuous term in the observer has
been replaced by a sigmoidal approximation. Also the
estimated value of  obtained from (49) is filtered
before use in the control law using a low pass filter
with time constant 0.02. This is valuable at the start of
the simulation and yields a more consistent estimate
for . The fact that eq is the low pass component of 
is quite consistent with the necessity to filter the
estimate.
In the following simulation the gain on the nonlinear
injection term k ¼ 50 whilst g1 ¼ 0:3392, g2 ¼
2:5786
and g3 ¼ 46:4196. These have been calculated according
to the formula in (40) and guarantee a sliding motion
will take place in finite time. The controller gains
have been changed to m1 ¼ 10 and m2 ¼ 10 to improve
the performance. Figure 6 shows the evolution of
the plant states (as dotted lines) and the estimated
states (as solid lines). The plots demonstrate a level of
performance close to that of the scenario in figure 4
(where it was assumed all the plant states were available
to the control law). Furthermore, the sliding surface ^
based on the state estimates (lower right hand side) is
similar to the state feedback case shown in figure 5.
Figure 7 shows the state estimation errors and the
normalised estimation error for . As expected from
figure 6, the error in the friction state estimate given
in figure 7 is small and quickly becomes zero. The
error in the velocity estimate and the relative velocity
estimate show an asymptotic decay but at a slow rate.
This is to be expected since one of the poles associated
with the system matrix in (47) is
gv ¼
0:049 and is
therefore slow. The fact that the state estimation
errors have not decayed results in a small error for the
estimate of .
Figure 8 shows the switching function associated
with the observer i.e., the output estimation error.
It shows sliding occurs almost instantly in the state
estimation error space and so the estimated angular
velocity !^ from the observer exactly tracks the plant
output ! throughout the simulation.
5. Conclusions
This article has considered a sliding mode based
scheme for optimal deceleration in an automotive
braking maneuvre. The scheme is model based and
910 N. Patel et al.

x 10−4 Error in friction state z Error in velocity v (m/s)

2 −0.085
−0.09
1
−0.095
0 −0.1
−0.105
−1
−0.11
−2 −0.115
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Error in relative velocity vr (m/s) Normalized error in estimated q

0.15 0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05

0
0
−0.05
−0.1 −0.05
−0.15
−0.2 −0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure 7. Estimation errors.

ey
seeks to maintain the longitudinal slip value associated 0.05
with the tyre road contact patch at an optimum
value – the point at which the
-slip curve reaches a
0
maximum. The scheme assumes only wheel angular
velocity is measured and uses a sliding mode
observer to reconstruct the states and a road condition −0.05
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
parameter for use in the controller. From estimated Time (seconds)
values of longitudinal speed and the road condition
parameter, the optimal values for longitudinal slip is Figure 8. Observer switching function ey.
calculated from a 2D look-up table. The sliding mode
controller then seeks to maintain the vehicle at this
optimal slip value through an appropriate choice of Appendix: Vehicle data
sliding surface. The proposed method is model-based The following tables give the friction model
and designed on the assumption that all the plant parameters and the vehicle parameters used in the
parameters are known (this is a reasonable assumption article.
as virtually all the literature cited in this paper
(Kiencke 1993, Gustafsson 1997, Ray 1997, Canudas-
de-Wit et al. 2003, Yi et al. 2003) make this assumption Table A1. LuGre friction
too). Also, the proposed method uses a quarter parameters.
vehicle model (again virtually all the literature cited
Parameter Value Unit
in this article uses a quarter vehicle model). Such
assumptions impose certain limitation for practical vs 6.57 m/s
implementation. To implement the proposed method L 0.20 m
0 181.54 1/m
in reality it is necessary to incorporate more
1 0.70 s/m
parameters into the vehicle model such as the variation
2 0.0018 s/m
of the vehicle load for each wheel, the distribution of
c 0.8
load for each wheel as a function of the road
s 1.55
gradient and load shifting during braking. This will be  0.5
the topic of future research.
 Optimal braking and estimation of tyre friction
Table A2. Vehicle parameters.
Parameter Value Unit
r 0.323 m Lyapunov functions and real parameter uncertainty’’, IEEE Trans.
J 2.603 kg/m2
m 1701 kg
v 0.005
w 1 H.J. Görich, ‘‘Basic system for friction detection and monitoring’’.
kb 0.9
References
L. Alvarez, J. Yi, R. Horowitz and L. Olmos, ‘‘Dynamic friction
model-based tyre–road friction estimation and emergency braking
control’’, Trans. of the ASME on J. Dyn. Syst., Measurement and
Control, March 2005, pp. 22–32, 2005.
E. Bakker, L. Nyborg and H. Pacejka, ‘‘Tyre modelling for use in
vehicle dynamics studies’’, Society of Automotive Engineering,
Paper No. 870 421, 1987.
S.P. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron and V. Balakrishnan,
‘‘Linear Matrix Inequalities in Systems and Control Theory’’,
Philadelphia: SIAM, 1994.
C. Canudas-de-Wit, H. Olsson, K.J. Åstráom and P. Lischinsky,
‘‘A new model for control of systems with friction’’, IEEE Trans.
on Automat. Contr., 40, pp. 419–425, 1995.
C. Canudas-de-Wit and P. Tsiotras, ‘‘Dynamic tyre friction models
for vehicle traction control’’. in Proceedings of 38th IEEE CDC,
AZ: Phoenix, 1999.
C. Canudas-de-Wit, P. Tsiotras, X. Claeys, J. Yi and R. Horowits,
‘‘Friction Tyre–Road Modeling’’, in Estimation and Optimal
Braking Control in Nonlinear and Hybrid Systems in Automotive
Control, R. Johansson and A. Rantzer, Eds, London, UK:
Springer-Verlag, 2003.
S. Drakunov, U. Ozguner, P. Dix and B. Ashrafi, ‘‘ABS control using
optimum search via sliding modes’’, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst.
Technol., 3, pp. 79–83, 1995.
S. Drakunov and V.I. Utkin, ‘‘Sliding mode observers: tutorial’’,
in Proceedings of 34th IEEE CDC, pp. 3376–3378, 1995.
C. Edwards, X. Yan and S. K. Spurgeon, ‘‘On the solvability of
the constrained Lyapunov problem’’, American Control
Conference, Minneapolis, June 2006.
C. Edwards and S.K. Spurgeon, ‘‘On the development of discontinu-
ous observers’’, Int. J. Contr., 59, pp. 1211–1229, 1994.
C. Edwards and S.K. Spurgeon, ‘‘Sliding mode output tracking with
application to a multivariable high temperature furnace problem’’,
Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Contr., 7, pp. 337–351, 1997.
911
C. Edwards and S.K. Spurgeon, Sliding Mode Control: Theory and
Applications, London: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1998.
U. Eichhorn and W. Seibert, ‘‘System for parameter-measurement and
evaluation on the process of tyre–road friction’’. In 3rd Prometheus
Workshop, Torino, 1990.
P. Gahinet, P. Apkarian and M. Chilali, ‘‘Affine parameter-dependent
on Automat. Contr., 41, pp. 436–442, 1996.
P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A. Laub and M. Chilali, LMI Control
Toolbox, User Guide. MathWorks, Inc., Natick, USA, 1995.
Prometheus Report, 1991.
F. Gustafsson, ‘‘Slip-based tyre-road friction estimation’’, Automatica,
33, pp. 1087–1099, 1997.
J. Harned, L. Johnston and G. Scharpf, ‘‘Measurement of tire brake
force characteristics as related to wheel slip (Antilock) control
system design’’, SAE Trans., 78, pp. 909–925, 1969.
F. Holzwarth, ‘‘A prototype of a measuring water sensor’’,
in Prometheus Workshop, Torino, 1990.
U. Kiencke, ‘‘Real-time estimation of adhesion characteristic
between tyre and road’’, in Proceedings of the IFAC World
Congress, Sydney, Australia, 1993.
S. Müller, M. Uchanski and K. Hedrick, ‘‘Estimation of the maximum
tyre-road friction coeffcient’’, ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Measurement
Contr., 125, pp. 607–617, 2003.
L. Olmos and L. Álvarez Icaza, ‘‘Optimal emergency vehicle braking
control based on dynamic friction model’’. J. Appl. Res. Technol.,
1, pp. 15–26, 2005.
L.R. Ray, ‘‘Nonlinear tyre force estimation and road friction
identification simulation and experiments’’, Automatica, 33,
pp. 1819–1833, 1997.
J. Svendenius, ‘‘The models for use in braking applications’’,
Department of Automat. Contr., Lund Institute of Technology,
Sweden, 2003.
V.I. Utkin, ‘‘Sliding Modes in Control Optimization’’, Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1992.
J.Y. Wong, Theory of Ground Vehicles. New York: Wiley-IEEE, 2001.
J. Yi, L. Alvarez, R. Horowitz and C. Canudas-de-Wit, ‘‘Adaptive
emergency braking control using a dynamic tyre–road friction
model’’, in Proceedings of 39th IEEE CDC, Sydney, Australia,
pp. 456–461, 2000.
J. Yi, L. Alvarez, X. Claeys and R. Horowitz, ‘‘Emergency braking
control with an observer-based dynamic tyre–road friction model
and wheel angular velocity Information’’, Proceeding of the
American Control Conference, Arlington, Texas, USA, June 2001.
J. Yi, L. Alvarez and R. Horowitz, ‘‘Adaptive emergency braking
control with understanding of friction coffcient’’. IEEE Trans.
Contr. Syst. Technol., 10, pp. 381–392, 2002.
J. Yi, L. Alvarez, X. Claeys and R. Horowitz, ‘‘Emergency braking
control with an observer-based dynamic tyre/road friction model
and wheel angular velocity measurement’’, Vehicle Syst. Dyn., 39,
pp. 81–97, 2003.

Nitin Patel received the B.E. degree from the Department of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, The Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (formally known as
The Regional Engineering College), Surat, India in 1998 and an M.Sc. degree in 2004, from
the Department of Engineering, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. Currently he is studying
for a Ph.D. degree from the Department of Engineering, University of Leicester whilst working
as an electronics and control engineer at ALSTOM Aerospace in Leicester. His research interests
are nonlinear control, robust control and the use of sliding mode observers for fault detection
and isolation.
912 N. Patel et al.

Chris Edwards was born in Swansea, South Wales. He graduated from Warwick University in
1987 with a B.Sc. in Mathematics. From 1987–1991 he was employed as a Research Officer for
British Steel Technical in Port Talbot where he worked in the R&D division. In 1991 he
moved to Leicester University as a Ph.D. student supported by a British Gas Research
Scholarship and was awarded a Ph.D. in 1995. He was appointed as a Lecturer in the Control
Systems Research Group at Leicester University in 1996 and promoted to Senior Lecturer in
2004. He is a co-author of over 150 refereed papers including two books on Sliding Mode
Control.

Sarah K. Spurgeon was born in Wolverhampton, England in 1963. She received first class B.Sc.
and D.Phil. degrees from the University of York (UK) in 1985 and 1988, respectively. She has
held academic positions at the University of Loughborough and the University of Leicester in
the UK and is currently a Professor in the Engineering Department at Leicester University.
She was appointed Head of the Department of Engineering in August 2005. Sarah Spurgeon
(CEng, CMath) is a Fellow of the IEE, a Fellow of the IMA, a Fellow of the InstMC and a
Senior Member of the IEEE. She was awarded an IEEE Millenium medal in 2000. Her research
interests are in the area of robust nonlinear control and estimation, particularly via sliding mode
techniques in which area she has published in excess of 200 refereed papers.